Without an efficient mechanism for enforcing basic rights if and when they are violated, a mere declaration of fundamental rights in the Constitution is meaningless, useless, and worthless. As a result, Article 32 grants an aggrieved person the right to seek redress for violations of his or her fundamental rights. In other words, the right to have one's Fundamental Rights preserved is a fundamental right in and of itself. The fundamental rights become tangible as a result of this. That is why Dr. Ambedkar referred to Article 32 as the Constitution's most significant article—"an article without which this constitution would be a nullity." It is the Constitution's very soul and very heart.' Article 32 is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. As a result, it cannot be reduced or eliminated, even through a constitutional amendment. It includes the following four clauses:

• The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights is guaranteed.
• The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. The writs issued may include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo-warranto.
• Parliament can empower any other court to issue directions, orders and writs of all kinds. However, this can be done without prejudice to the above powers conferred on the Supreme Court. Any other court here does not include high courts because Article 226 has already conferred these powers on the high courts.
• The right to move the Supreme Court shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution. Thus the Constitution provides that the President can suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights during a national emergency (Article 359).

As a result, it is apparent that the Supreme Court was established to protect and defend citizens' fundamental rights. For that aim, it has been given the 'original' and 'broad' powers. Original because an aggrieved citizen can move straight to the Supreme Court without having to go through the appeals process. Its power is broad since it extends beyond issuing orders or directives to include all types of writs.

Article 32's goal is to provide an effective, quick, low-cost, and quick remedy for the protection of basic rights. Article 32 can only be used to enforce the Constitution's Fundamental Rights, not other rights such as non-fundamental constitutional rights, statute rights, customary rights, and so on. The violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for the exercise of the right conferred by Article 32.In other words, under Article 32, the Supreme Court cannot rule on a subject that does not concern Fundamental Rights. Article 32 cannot be used to determine the constitutionality of a law or executive order unless it directly violates one or more of the fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction over the implementation of Fundamental Rights. It runs concurrently with the high court's Article 226 authority. It gives the high court the authority to issue all kinds of directives, orders, and writs in order to enforce the Fundamental Rights. When a citizen's Fundamental Rights are violated, the aggrieved individual has the option of directly petitioning the high court or the Supreme Court.

The presence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to relief under Article 32 because the right afforded by Article 32 (i.e., the right to petition the Supreme Court if a fundamental right is violated) is a fundamental right in and of itself. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has stated that where an aggrieved party has a right to seek relief from the high court under Article 226, the aggrieved party must first seek relief from the high court.